(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is asking the Justice Department's inspector general to examine whether "high-ranking" DOJ and FBI officials "compromised the public trust in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server as Secretary of State and potential mishandling of classified material."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Prove that China donated anything to Clinton's campaign. I'll be waiting for it as will several thousand other people.

I'm eager to see this too. Golfboy is way overdue to be right about something. I think I'll join the BAC school of instigation. We investigate until we can prove that deepest personal fantasies are true.

This is what we have here for "debate" at LF, cons, with a few rare exceptions, that simply puke up outright fabrications on the board and never, ever admit when they've been refuted. Beachoose, goofyboy, old mack, jimbo...the list goes on. Dishonest spammers who are NOT here to discuss issues, but just troll and spam.

Fine, if all we have is a whack-a-mole game, I guess we'll have to settle for idle time killing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was investigated you dimwit... No one could prove that the President received a penny from China

True, it was investigated (at least partially) but you are a baldfaced liar as to the results, SM.

The ONLY reason the Clintons didn't see jail is because they owned the DOJ, just like Lynch is protecting them now.

The facts in Chinagate offer a perfect example of you dishonesty or stupidity or both.

I can prove that by simply citing just the contents of official government reports … like the Cox Committee report and the LaBella Memo ... and leftwing media sources.

Here, let me instruct you. This is my course in Chinagate 101 for people like you:

The Cox Committee was a bi-partison Congressional committee (consisting of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats) that published a 700 page report in the late 90s. It’s conclusions were unanimous ... that US national security vis a vis Communist China was gravely harmed by the actions and inaction of the Clinton administration. [They concluded that China literally got away with America's crown jewels, for example, computer codes containing data on 50 years of US nuclear weapons development and a 1000 nuclear tests, nuclear warhead simulation technology, advanced electromagnetic weapons technology, missile nose cone technology, missile guidance technology, space-based radar technology and other classified information which the Clinton Administration (not the Cox committee) determined could not be made public. And it all happened because the Clintons effectively sold access to those things for millions in illegal campaign contributions from the communist Chinese.

After the Cox Report came out, an FBI agent named Charles LaBella spent months looking into the connections between campaign contributions, foreign influences and administration actions. He met resistance of course. FBI agent Ivian C. Smith wrote a letter to Freeh, dated August 4, 1997, expressing "a lack of confidence" in the Justice Department's willingness to conduct a thorough investigation. Smith and three other career agents testified before the Senate that the Justice Department had impeded their inquiry. FBI agent Daniel Wehr stated that lead U.S. Attorney Laura Ingersoll told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president." Never the less, what LaBelle found was published in a 100 page memo he prepared for Attorney General Janet Reno ... the infamous La Bella Memo. Have you not heard of it, DIMWIT?

La Bella wrote to Reno: "[A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House -- including the President's and First Lady's offices -- concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort." The memo argued that an independent counsel should be appointed to carry on the investigation. Janet Reno, who was clearly controlled by the Clintons, rejected that recommendation and also refused to release the memo to the public or Congress. She rejected the recommendation despite the fact that FBI-Director Freeh testified that the public knows only about one per cent of what the FBI knows about the Chinagate scandal. She rejected the recommendation to keep the American public from learning the other 99% of this tale of treason. You see, the parallels with what we see going on in Obama’s FBI and DOJ right now are stunning. The same obstruction of justice occurring by the DOJ … and not just to protect Obama but another Clinton.

Hillary’s sycophants (like you) want Americans to forget that millions and millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions that were proven to have flowed into Clinton and DNC campaign coffers from foreign entities with direct ties to Communist China. You want Americans to forget that 22 people were convicted during Clinton's term (despite efforts by the Clinton controlled DOJ to hinder the investigations) of funneling illegal foreign *contributions* (mostly originating in Communist China) into Clinton and DNC coffers. You want Americans to forget another 94-120 people (depending on the source) either fled the country or pled the 5th in the scandal. Proving that you are a piece of work, SM. DISHONEST TO THE CORE. Just like Hillary. So no wonder you support her.

You want Americans to forget that James Riady, the Indonesian billionaire who had with ties to Communist China (according to numerous US intelligence agencies), illegally donated millions of dollars to Clinton and the DNC. And when this was discovered, Clinton and DNC officials publicly proclaimed that it was all a mistake and they'd returned those millions to Riady. But years later, Riady stood up in front of a California courtroom, under a plea agreement where he promised to tell the truth, and told the judge that the money had NEVER been returned. And when the judge asked the prosecuting attorney if this was true, the attorney said "to the best of our knowledge", "yes." You want Americans to forget all that or never learn about it at all. Proving you’re just as dishonest as Hillary. No wonder you support her.

Even the highly partisan Washington Post finally had to admit some of what had occurred in Chinagate. Read this …

The report describes what it calls "strong circumstantial evidence" that six individuals with strong ties to the Chinese, including the Riadys, may have funneled foreign money into political campaigns during the 1996 U.S. election cycle.

... snip ...

Concern about Chinese activities began in 1996, when the CIA determined that China, which worried that it lacked sufficient influence in U.S. politics and policymaking, planned to raise $3 million for an effort to buy influence with U.S. politicians, according to officials familiar with sensitive intelligence.

Here's the Senate report the Washington Post (hardly a right wing source or Republican source) was talking about and a few excerpts from it:

Committee staff identified several instances of foreign money donations connected to six individuals with ties to the PRC. As noted below, John Huang, Maria Hsia, Ted Sioeng, and James and Mochtar Riady each have been associated in some way with the Government of China. The sixth, Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, is a business partner of Ng Lap Seng, a Macao businessman with alleged ties to the PRC. Trie, who recently was indicted and arrested, escorted Wang Jun, head of China's principal arms trading company, Polytechnologies, to a February 6, 1996 coffee with President Clinton and a meeting the same day with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

In 1996, John Huang solicited some $3.4 million in contributions to the DNC. Nearly half this amount has been returned as the contributions were determined by the DNC to have been made with actual or suspected foreign funds. In September 1993, Huang wrote three checks to the DNC, each in the amount of $15,000, each paid with foreign money. The checks were drawn on the accounts of three Lippo Group subsidiaries--Hip Hing Holdings, San Jose Holdings, and Toy Center Holdings. At the time the checks were written, all of the companies were losing money and operating in the red. Hearing testimony from a Huang coworker indicates the money for the three contribution checks came from Lippo accounts in Jakarta.

... snip ...

Huang's $45,000 in DNC contributions was made in close proximity to occasions when Huang may have arranged for Vice President Gore to meet Shen Jueren, the head of a commercial enterprise wholly owned and operated by the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. Called China Resources Holdings, Shen's company has been identified as a PRC intelligence-gathering operation; one with reported ties to the People's Liberation Army.

... snip ...

The Riadys were Huang's patrons and supporters throughout his careers at Lippo and later the Department of Commerce and the DNC. In fact, James Riady attended a small meeting in the Oval Office on September 13, 1995, at which President Clinton was asked if he would help Huang move from Commerce to the DNC. President Clinton acceded to the request, and by the end of the year, Huang became the DNC's vice-chairman of finance, a position created especially for him.

... snip ...

Information obtained by the Committee reveals close ties between the PRC and many of the individuals who produced or facilitated foreign campaign contributions. And these individuals--Ted Sioeng, Maria Hsia, John Huang, and James and Mochtar Riady--interacted with one-another with some frequency. Their paths appear to have crossed most often when they were engaged in fund- raising or contributing money to the Democratic National Committee.

Ted Sioeng.\11\ The Committee has learned that Sioeng worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government. Sioeng regularly communicated with PRC embassy and consular officials at various locations in the United States, and, before the campaign finance scandal broke, he traveled to Beijing frequently where he reported to and was briefed by Chinese communist party officials.

... snip ...

Maria Hsia.\15\ The Committee has learned that Hsia has been an agent of the Chinese government, that she has acted knowingly in support of it, and that she has attempted to conceal her relationship with the Chinese government. The Committee has also learned that Hsia has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in the U.S.

... snip ...

John Huang.\16\ Since well before its hearings began, the Committee focused on John Huang. The goal was to understand why an executive at a small California bank (owned by a large Indonesian conglomerate), who raised money prolifically for the Democratic party and was rewarded with a political appointment at the Department of Commerce, was so often and well received by President Clinton and his staff. The Committee's interest was further piqued by the fact that to date, the DNC has returned half of the money Huang raised in 1996.

... snip ...

The Committee has examined in detail Huang's activities at Lippo, Commerce, and the DNC. A single piece of unverified information shared with the Committee indicates that Huang himself may possibly have had a direct financial relationship with the PRC government.

... snip ...

James and Mochtar Riady.\18\ The Committee has learned from recently-acquired information that James and Mochtar Riady have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The relationship is based on mutual benefit, with the Riadys receiving assistance in finding business opportunities in exchange for large sums of money and other help. Although the relationship appears based on business interests, the Committee understands that the Chinese intelligence agency seeks to locate and develop relationships with information collectors, particularly persons with close connections to the U.S. government.

... snip ...

The foregoing indicates that large amounts of money were funneled from accounts in Greater China into the DNC by individuals who had close ties to the PRC. This activity takes on greater import when viewed in light of the fact that the PRC government had developed and implemented plans to influence the U.S. political process before most of the aforementioned contributions were made.

Do a browser search on a man named Johnny Chung. You’ll find he testified under oath that in 1996 the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for Clinton's campaign. He said he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". In fact, you’ll learn that Red China's General Shengdi told Chung that he gave Mark Middleton $500,000 for Clinton. Mark Middleton, a top member of Clinton's administration, pled the 5th when asked about it. You’ll find that the House Committee on Government Reform checked Mark Middleton's bank records and found he received over $1.75 million dollars from Asian "businesses" and worked directly for the Riady family. Mark Middleton, a top lieutenant of the Clintons, committed TREASON at their behest. And you want to hide that information from the American people.

Research Chung and you find that some of the money he illegally gave the Whitehouse passed directly through Hillary's office and through her own Chief of Staff's (Maggie William's) hands. After Chung presented Maggie with a check for $50,000 in illegal contributions (which was doubly illegal because the money was handed over inside the White House), Chung met with Hillary, whose first words to him were "Welcome to the White House, my good friend." Johnny Chung was such a "good friend" that he was in the Clinton Whitehouse on 57 different occasions. That’s part of the Chinagate scandal that you Hillary sycophants want people to forget or even better never learn about.` The plain and simple truth is that Hillary committed TREASON … and you want to hide that fact during this election cycle. Making you a TRAITOR in my book, SM.

Look beyond your usual news sources and you’ll even find an FBI transcript of a call to Johnny Chung from Chinese operative Robert Luu in which Luu credits the source of Clinton and DNC campaign contributions to the "princelings" ... that is, the children of People’s Liberation Army officers in front companies. He said in the call, "Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this. The President over here also agreed." Well, it so happens that Clinton and Jiang were meeting when the call took place. You don’t need to be a genius or political science major to connect the dots here. You just have to not be a toe tag Hillary sycophant, like you. The plain and simple truth is that Bill Clinton committed TREASON and it's clear as day. REAL 100% TREASON. He sold out America for Chinese cash. And you’re trying to hide that fact from today’s Americans. Making you a traitor, too.

Just a few weeks after the Cox Report was released, journalist Carl Cameron reported that "The President appointed his long-time friend and fundraiser Charlie Trie of Little Rock to a trade commission to deal with Hong Kong and other Asian nations. A few years later Trie pled guilty to fundraising violations and began cooperating with investigators, but in 1997, FBI surveillance observed Trie’s employees destroying evidence in the campaign fundraising investigation. At the time, the Justice Department sent two officials to Little Rock to get search warrants and intervene. But on the eve of Senate hearings into campaign finance abuse, the Justice Department pulled back on the warrants and the search of Trie’s office, so frustrated FBI agents had to watch as more documents were destroyed. Just like we see going on now. That’s TREASON. Just like now.

And here more on the Riadys. James and Mochtar Riady, Indonesian billionaires and ex-employers of communist Chinese agent John Huang, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. James Riady donated more than $475,000 to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Inaugural Fund and various Democratic candidates. Moctar's gardener managed to contribute $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. Imagine that! I guess it pays to weed the roses. James Riady visited the White House over a dozen times. His visits were scheduled through Mark Middleton … you know, the guy who pled the 5th. The Clintons have been doing pay for play for decades. And committing TREASON.

Intelligence authorities said the Riadys had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Bill Clinton, while out of the country, even met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities that sought to question them in this matter. Then Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for James Riady, Mochtar's son, to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over, in large part thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to stop it. That *deal* had to wait till Bush became President. Unfortunately, Bush (and now we know why thanks to Trump exposing what the GOPe is really about) was more interested in "moving on' from the Clinton scandals then getting to the truth. So the Clintons got away with keeping Riady's money … got away with TREASON.

Consider the unprecedented scope of what even the most ardent Clinton partisan must admit is a criminal conspiracy. In a limousine with Clinton shortly after the 1992 nomination, Riady — well known by Clinton to be a foreign national — stated his intent to raise a million dollars for the campaign. (The president legalistically says he has no "specific recollection" of this, but John Huang, then Riady's agent, does.) He delivered most of it through illegal fronts.

Riady then gave Huang a million- dollar "bonus" and ensconced him in a sensitive post at the Commerce Department. Records show Huang had the run of the White House and kept in close touch with Riady interests in Asia. He used his "bonus" to fill campaign coffers of Clinton and his allies throughout the first term.

To what end? "To obtain various benefits," the criminal information signed by Riady asserts, including "Most Favored Nation status for China, open trade policies with Indonesia, normalization of relations with Vietnam." Clinton delivered on all three, to the huge financial benefit of Riady interests in Asia.

... snip ...

Because Clinton had reversed his policy in order to benefit Riady's clients in Asia, the Asian connection paid off; Huang raised $3.4 million for Clinton-Gore and other Democratic campaigns

... snip ...

As a side favor, Riady gave a $100,000 retainer to the tight-lipped felon Webster Hubbell, which some of us cruelly held to be hush money. Riady will now explain this to Independent Counsel Robert Ray's grand jury as well as to Congress, but Justice's sweetheart plea bargain before Clinton's departure has removed the Indonesian financier's incentive to tell truths that might further shame the shameless.

Staring us in the face is this stunning assertion now harder than ever to controvert: An American president's foreign policy decisions were substantially influenced by unlawful campaign contributions at critical times from a foreign source. In my view, that inescapable judgment will be more damning in history's eyes than Whitewater cover-ups or any abuses for which Clinton was impeached.

TREASON, SM. And doubly so since the above was only part of what the Clintons gave the Chinese in return for millions in cash. As I already noted, during the Clinton years, China acquired a wide array of US military-related technology and the Clinton Administration actively helped them do this. Such as making it possible for China to purchase hundreds of super computers. Clinton, overruling the State and Defense departments, switched the authority for licensing satellites, computers and other high technology items from the State Department (and other agencies) to the Commerce Department where one signature, Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's, became the conduit for providing access to formally restricted technologies of all types.

It wasn't just a coincidence that a "friend" of Charlie Trie met with Ron Brown after attending a "coffee" with Bill Clinton, the same day that Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer missile and satellite related technology to China. It wasn't just coincidence that Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral, was the single largest *legal* contributor to the DNC that year (giving over $500,000 ... $400,000 more than he'd given in any previous year). And it wasn't just coincidence that Ron Brown died under clouded circumstances just as he was planning to turn state's evidence on this activity and other campaign finance related illegalities. No, IT WAS TREASON. And Brown's death was needed by the Clintons to cover that treason up. So over 30 people on the airplane carrying Brown died, just to silence him. It was *necessary*. And Hillary was involved in that. The name Zdenka Gast ring a bell? And you want to hide all that from Americans during this election. You want to keep them in the dark. As far as I'm concerned, you're complicit in that treason ... even in the murders.

The hard cold truth is that back in the 1990s the Clintons sold out America to communists for campaign cash.

But you will never admit it, regardless of what evidence and sources I supply.

You won't, because you’re a disgusting TRAITOR, equally willing to sell out America as the Clintons were and are, SM.

YOU are why America can't afford to put the Clintons back in the Whitehouse.

Because you would then let them get away with ANYTHING. LITERALLY ANYTHING.

24 years of investigation and the Clintons have yet to spend a day in jail.

And that attitude is what makes you Hillary sycophants dangerous. She could murder someone in front of CNN cameras on live TV and you'd let her get away with it.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it filed a motion to compel former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to answer three interrogatory questions she refused to answer under oath, submitted to her by Judicial Watch under a court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 19, 2016. In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that Clinton “failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections.” Hillary Clinton refused outright to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warning from State Department officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.

In her responses sent to Judicial Watch and the court on October 13, 2016, Clinton refused to answer three questions outright and responded that she “does not recall” 20 times concerning her non-government clintonemail.com email system. She preceded her responses by eight “general objections” and two “objections to definitions.” The words “object” or “objection” appear 84 times throughout the 23-page document submitted to the court and Judicial Watch.

In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity…. In addition, the party objecting to the interrogatory “bears the burden of ‘show[ing] why discovery should not be permitted….’” Although she objected to the three interrogatories, Secretary Clinton failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections.

Interrogatory 1 asks: “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.” In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

Secretary Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory is outside the scope of permitted discovery…. However, the creation of the clintonemail.com system is squarely within the scope of permitted discovery. Understanding the basic facts surrounding the creation of the system is an integral part of understanding how and why it came to be used for State Department business. To date, no witness has testified about these facts, and the Court specifically authorized interrogatories to enable Plaintiff to gather this information. Secretary Clinton’s refusal to answer the interrogatory is therefore misplaced.

Interrogatory 14 asks:

On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

Secretary Clinton objected to Interrogatory 14, asserting that it concerned “cybersecurity issues outside the scope of permitted discovery.” In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

Interrogatory 14 does not concern “cybersecurity issues.” It asks whether Secretary Clinton read a memorandum about the general use of unapproved or unclassified Blackberries, and, if she did read the memorandum, why did she continue using an unapproved or unclassified Blackberry – the device by which [she] accessed the clintonemail.com account she used to conduct official government business. A yes or no answer to whether she read the memorandum will not reveal any information the parties’ agreed-upon scope sought to avoid. Similarly, if the answer is yes, Secretary Clinton’s explanation as to why, after reading the memorandum, she continued to access her clintonemail.com account through her Blackberry also will not reveal any information the parties’ agreed-upon scope sought to avoid. The interrogatory clearly seeks information squarely within the scope of permitted discovery. Secretary Clinton should be compelled to answer Interrogatory 14.

Interrogatory 24 asks:

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and ‘if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.’ Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Secretary Clinton objected to Interrogatory 24 and asserted that the interrogatory asked for information protected by the attorney-client privilege. In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:

Interrogatory 24 does not seek any factual information Secretary Clinton may have provided to her attorneys in confidence for purposes of obtaining legal advice. Nor does it seek any advice Secretary Clinton’s attorneys may have provided the secretary that would reveal facts she provided them in confidence. The interrogatory only seeks the factual basis for a specific representation Secretary Clinton made to Congress. It is irrelevant whether Secretary Clinton told her attorneys about the factual basis for this representation, either for purposes of obtaining legal advice or for some other purpose, because Plaintiff has not asked about any such communications. As a result, the attorney client privilege does not apply.

***

Because Secretary Clinton has failed to provide any such information to justify her assertion of the attorney client privilege, she should be compelled to answer Interrogatory 24.

“By refusing to answer our simple questions, Hillary Clinton is obstructing our efforts to get basic information about her email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Because she has not – and cannot – demonstrate that her refusal to answer our questions is proper, Hillary Clinton should be required by the court to answer them promptly.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The State Department claimed in court that it does not have any communications between Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House during the day and week of Benghazi, even though records show that those communications took place.

The FBI does not have those communications either, according to court documents.

… snip …

State Department Operations Center Watch Logs show that President Obama was “patched” to Secretary Clinton at 10:27 PM Eastern Time (4:27 AM local Benghazi time), on the night of September 11, 2012, as the attack in Benghazi was unfolding. It took Obama more than six hours to appear in the Watch Log after the White House convened an emergency conference call of top officials.

What are they hiding folks? We still need to know. Well, anyone old enough to vote needs to know, that is ...